Do people normally have a "negativity bias"?

[OneSheep]

I guess it’s kind of the goal, the exact one being literally: what God wants… I usually see it as more of a humble thought process, where I admit that I could be wrong and that pride (or other things) could be clouding my view.

For me I just find that I am so ridiculously unaware about things. I really like the humble approach, it is a position of wisdom for me. I have made plenty of errors making assumptions!

And so often the assumptions were one of assuming the negative about people, when reality is that they are operating under a lot of misconceptions just as I do/did.

I’m guarding against future negativity…I may as well admit that I don’t always cooperate like I should.

But do you see what you are doing here? Very cool. You doing exactly as you said, you are being circumspect. When we look at what is going on in our minds, we are sort of “free” to stand back and look rather than be sort of imprisoned by what the mind is telling us.

“I’m guarding against future negativity” What a great reflection! “Guarding” in itself is a fear stance, but through reflection, now you are not caught up in the fear, but instead can look at the fear and understand it as part of the normal human working of the mind. (Unless you are putting yourself down about it, but that could also be transcended, so to speak).

Do you see what I’m seeing? I think that there might be some freedom in accepting that we all have “negativity biases”, and we sort of transcend them by observing the compulsion.

And then when you observe you are not cooperating as you should, let’s say you feel a little shame or guilt about that. if we admit our shame or guilt, we are already addressing the bias, right? And unless we find shame or guilt unacceptable, then we can just admit that feeling shame or guilt is okay, so we change our behaviors and move on, rather than hanging onto the negativity.

I’m really glad you put your voice here. You’re making a lot of sense!

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I’ve answered your question several times and you are now asking the same one again. As Grace Slick said, point that mike somewhere else.

 

[OneSheep]

I used to have a pretty negative view of one specific group of people though. Up until a few years ago I identified as a “traditional Catholic” and would say I had a pretty negative view of “Novus Ordo” Catholics, which is the majority of Catholics. I focused on abuses made to the liturgy, and statistics showing that high numbers of Catholics don’t believe in key dogmas like the Real Presence. At one point I even wondered how Novus Ordo Catholics could be saved. I had trouble believing John Paul II was actually a saint because he participated in interfaith dialogue. But once I finally came into contact with “Novus Ordo” Catholicism in college, I learned to drop my prejudices. I met people who truly loved God and made Him the center of their lives. And my focus shifted. I had previously had a very Pelagian attitude that could be summed up as “I can be a good Catholic by going to Latin Mass and believing every single Church teaching and defending the one true faith.” Now my attitude is more like “I can be a good Catholic by seeking to cooperate with God’s grace in my life and by striving to love Him and do His will.”

I used to have a really negative attitude about certain groups also, based on a number of assumptions. Sounds like we both have been blessed with some enlightenment.

Some of us are worse sinners than others but we all are made to get to heaven.

When we look at people’s sin, and then find them “below neutral” so to speak, are we operating from a negativity bias?

 

[veritatisstella]

I don’t think it’s a negativity bias when we see some person’s sin or state of life to be “below neutral” in an objective sense. We still remember that God loves the person and we are not judging the person’s culpability. Like, I would think Hitler was far below neutral in terms of evil, but who am I to judge that he’s in hell?

 

[OneSheep]

I’ve answered your question several times and you are now asking the same one again. As Grace Slick said, point that mike somewhere else.

My bad, npi. I didn’t see your answer, except that you said that judging is wrong, but I was confused because you earlier said:

some humans are very bad

which is a judgment, right?

So I was just wondering if you agreed with me. We judge, its natural, it’s part of the negativity bias, but it has a function and we can forgive and move on.

No need to respond… except for any additional clarification.

 

[Finn]

I relate to this.

 

[OneSheep]

Like, I would think Hitler was far below neutral in terms of evil, but who am I to judge that he’s in hell?

Well, judging is not limited to final judgment, right? We can certainly agree that Hitler did far greater evil than the norm, but what I’m observing is a natural part of the negativity bias is that we attach a person’s intrinsic value to his or her behaviors. For example, since we all misbehave sometimes, and we all come to naturally resent parts of ourselves, it follows that we see ourselves (and others by projection) as something less than the beautiful creatures we are.

What I’m talking about is perhaps a little beneath people’s radar, maybe. Don’t we kinda naturally feel a little negatively toward people who sin?.. but then we all sin… What I’m looking for here is whether the observations made in the OP are accurate for people, and then where do we go from here?

 

[Benadam]

The bias is what focuses our attention on threats in our environment, so it has a function,

The bias I think is something we must overcome since it is a response we weren’t burdened with before death entered our reality. The Christian response to threats in our environment is to see them as an opportunity to grow in Christ. Easier said than done I know.

Can you relate to having a “negativity bias”? If so, how do you address it in your prayer life?

I can relate. I ask God for the grace to suffer more like He and His Mother suffered.

I pray to be able to do what love demands at every moment. To see To see Christ in everyone.

Maybe it would be good to internalize the bias so we are it’s object, this way we will hold other’s as in higher regard than ourselves.

 

[veritatisstella]

what I’m observing is a natural part of the negativity bias is that we attach a person’s intrinsic value to his or her behaviors

I have noticed that some people do on some subconscious level attach intrinsic value to people’s behaviors. At least, there’s a tendency in popular culture to look down on criminals as “animals”.

But I don’t see a negativity bias on a formal level in theology; it’s more present at an emotional level.

 

[OneSheep]

Maybe it would be good to internalize the bias so we are it’s object, this way we will hold other’s as in higher regard than ourselves.

However, this is one of the issues that arises. Focus on the negativity can lead to a “dualistic theological anthropology” which leads to a devalue of parts of ourselves, i.e. the “profanity of the body”.

To me, the devaluing aspect is quite natural, it is an aspect of development of the conscience.

On the other hand to “hold others in higher regard” does not necessarily mean self-devaluation. If holding others in this way is a motivation to serve, it will certainly reinforce a positive outlook. When we want the best for others, we learn that our own positive interaction with them is uplifting.

The bias I think is something we must overcome since it is a response we weren’t burdened with before death entered our reality.

Ironically, if our position is “man is to blame for having the burden of the negativity bias”, then we are operating from the negativity bias itself when making the observation!

 

[OneSheep]

I have noticed that some people do on some subconscious level attach intrinsic value to people’s behaviors. At least, there’s a tendency in popular culture to look down on criminals as “animals”.

Yes, I definitely am/have been one to attach intrinsic value to behaviors! It is quite natural, I think. In my own experience, it is through the process of understanding and forgiving that the devaluation is overcome. I think it is “popular culture” because it is part of our nature.

But I don’t see a negativity bias on a formal level in theology

Any theology that presents man as depraved, or man as partly evil (dualism), is due to the influence of the negativity bias. This presentation is alive and well today, and is very, natural, so IMO has its place. In my experience, when we eventually come to understand, love, and accept every part of ourselves, this natural dualism goes away.

A non-dualistic outlook, in my observation, is as supernatural as loving and forgiving one’s enemies.

 

[friardchips]

I think ‘positivity bias’ can also be understood as the rationalisation of sin.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Past a point, certainly, yes.

 

[OneSheep]

I think ‘positivity bias’ can also be understood as the rationalisation of sin.

It would be a lack of awareness, though, that leads to the rationalizing.

In addition, the desires we have, when intense, tend to compromise what the conscience tells us. This phenomenon is not really a “positivity bias” but a “desire bias”. When we want badly enough, the mind’s view of reality gets warped.

 

[friardchips]

You are commenting on different points.

The lack of awareness could be understood as being part of the rationalisation (or irrational) process, right up until the giving into temptation, to the final act of disobedience.

Sin is not what the heart truly desires. Sin is a warping of one’s true desire. ‘Positivity bias’ is really just a secular word. ‘Desire bias’ is a bit self-defeating, as a term.

 

[OneSheep]

The lack of awareness could be understood as being part of the rationalisation (or irrational) process, right up until the giving into temptation, to the final act of disobedience.

Yes! It is irrational. When you have given in to temptation, have you ever been completely rational?

Sin is not what the heart truly desires.

Yes, I agree. And in saying so, you are counteracting the “negativity bias” that the author was referring to.

People may want (desire) wealth, status, power, unlimited sex, etc. etc., but we have a deep(er) desire to avoid sin. I’m thinking that a “desire bias” would be one of thinking that a particular act is good when it satisfies one of the wants I mentioned even though it may cause some injury to self or others.

It is not “positivity” in a truthful sense. It is blindness.

Do you have a “negative bias” concerning “secular terms”?

 

[friardchips]

It is an irrational choice to choose to sin, because Christians are given the things of Heaven, only to give them up, for illusions of grandeur.

It is the rationalising of sin to choose sin, because Christians have been equipped with a reasoning conscience, and are not given more than we can cope with, proven in the times that people are faithful.

 

[veritatisstella]

Any theology that presents man as depraved, or man as partly evil (dualism), is due to the influence of the negativity bias.

Would you think the theology of original sin is influenced by “negativity bias”?

 

[OneSheep]

Would you think the theology of original sin is influenced by “negativity bias”?

Before I answer that, I’d like to quote from the author again:

human beings… have evolved with an inherent and continual anxious hypervigilance in our embodied brain ecosystem to ensure our survival.

So, the negative bias is in itself a gift from God, put there to help with our survival. The negative bias, as such, is a thing of beauty. It has a functional beauty.

So, yes, I do think that the theology of original sin, in its standard form, is influenced by “negativity bias”, but it is a purposeful influence, a good influence. We are all compelled to find fault, to blame something for our state when we are suffering. We could reasonably blame God, but that blame goes nowhere, and leaves the person with no reason for faith.

Instead, that human suffering is to be blamed on the human (original sin) lends itself to vigilance in a number of ways. The first message is “obey!” or “submit”, and if we are not, bad things can happen. This is the truth, for sure, in a tribal situation. Unless there is cooperation with leadership, the ability to act in unison falls apart, and in a tribal setting division is definitely a threat to survival. There is also the aspect of conscience formation, which is a big part of the creation story theme. Self-condemnation (which is an action of the conscience) for wanting something badly to the point that our judgment is compromised (Adam and Eve), is something we need to be very vigilant about, so that our own behaviors can be kept in check.

Does that make sense to you?

 

[Benadam]

Ironically, if our position is “man is to blame for having the burden of the negativity bias”, then we are operating from the negativity bias itself when making the observation!

What I meant is the bias isn’t natural to us. I think judgment of others is bad and judgement of ourselves is bad. But putting others before ourselves is our true nature and doing it lifts us up because we find the meaning of life…